Behavioral Determinants of Ethical Decision-Making: The Role of Pro-Sociality and Gender

While most corruption research emphasizes institutional factors, increasing attention has turned to the micro-level behavioral foundations of everyday norm violations—such as lying for personal gain—that, although not illegal, mirror practices underlying low-level corruption. This study examines gender differences in ethical decision-making, focusing on how individuals navigate trade-offs between honesty, self-interest, and the welfare of others in morally ambiguous settings. Using social role theory and experimental economics, we conduct a laboratory experiment in Colombia to test whether gender influences truth-telling when personal earnings can be increased at the expense of a third party. The design is based on a modified Lying-Dictator Game in which participants roll a 10-sided die, privately observe the result, and report a number. Their report determines both the amount allocated to them and the amount allocated to a recipient. Participants may report the truth or misreport to alter payouts, allowing us to measure honesty as a proxy for moral restraint. The experiment manipulates (1) the identity of the recipient (e.g., general-purpose NGO, women-focused NGO, or institutional beneficiary) and (2) the framing of the decision (as a donation to a social cause or as funds lost to the experimenter). One variant reverses the task by asking participants to report how much they keep rather than how much they donate. We expect women to report more honestly, particularly in pro-social contexts and when recipients align with traditionally feminine causes. Findings provide empirical evidence on how gender norms and contextual cues interact to shape ethical choices, informing gender-sensitive integrity-promotion strategies in the Global South.